Skip to main content

How Bangladesh Is Moving Forward

One benefit of nuclear energy that does not get much play is the way its deployment can lead to rapid industrialization in developing nations – maybe a better way to put this is, it can help bring about an industrial revolution. Even better, for those parts of the world that take advantage of this, it allows for rapid industrialization without adding to carbon emission issues.

Consider this BBC profile of Bangladesh:

Poverty is deep and widespread; almost half of the population live on less than one dollar a day. However, Bangladesh has reduced population growth and improved health and education.

Because you’ve got to start with your people. Then, you’ve got to find ways for them to maximize their gains.

The country is trying to diversify its economy, with industrial development a priority. Overseas investors have pumped money into manufacturing and the energy sector. 

Although Bangladesh has major social issues that make it exceptionally fragile, it’s how it’s moving forward that’s interesting.

Bangladesh has begun building the first of two new nuclear power plants north of the capital, Dhaka.

The plants - each with a capacity of 1,000 megawatts - are being constructed with Russian help as Bangladesh looks to close a yawning power deficit.

I believe the facility will be called Rippur.

According to the CIA World Factbook, the country now gets 95 percent of its electricity (about 5.8 million kilowatts in 2009) from fossil fuels. The nuclear reactors will reduce this percentage immediately, even if they do not replace any other kind of facility. (I ran into stories talking about renewable energy in Bangladesh, but aside from hydro, this is all nascent.)

But the facility might replace a few older plants:

Bangladesh currently relies on dilapidated gas-fired plants for its power supplies and experiences daily electricity shortfalls.

Erratic electricity supplies have been blamed for hampering industrial production and economic growth.

I can’t help but think that a nuclear facility would be safer, too. “Dilapidated” is not the word you want applied to your power station.

Comments

Bill said…
"I believe the facility will be called Rippur."

'Ruppur' and 'Rooppur' are the Latin-alphabet versions I've seen.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…